Re: [gentoo-user]Can't went to the xfce desktop directly

[Willie Matthews]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:26:40 +0800
赵佳晖  wrote:

> Hello , everyone . I have install the xfce-meta followed the xfce
> handbook . But when i restart the computer . And the login
> manager(slim) appeared. I just enter my account and passwd . After
> that . the computer have become black with a mouse icon like x .  And
> i should use Ctrl+Alt+F1 to went to the tty , then when i run the
> command: startxfce4 , it tell me the X was already running . I should
> kill the X first or change the display number to start the xfce . I'm
> wonder how did this happen ? Did it because of the connection between
> Xorg and xfce ? Can anyone help me? i'm new to gentoo and I have no
> idea how to deal with it ? Can i find any log to find something?
> 

It sounds as though you are starting only X and not xfce.

This is my logon_cmd from /etc/slim.conf
login_cmd   exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch --sh-syntax
--exit-with-session /bin/bash -login ~/.xinitrc %session >
~/.xsession-errors 2>&1

And this is my ~/.xinitrc

exec startxfce4

Everything is running great. If I am not mistaken that is all it will
take to get it running.

-- 

Willie Matthews
matthews.wil...@gmail.com

[gentoo-user]Can't went to the xfce desktop directly

[赵佳晖]

Hello , everyone . I have install the xfce-meta followed the xfce
handbook . But when i restart the computer . And the login manager(slim)
appeared. I just enter my account and passwd . After that . the computer
have become black with a mouse icon like x .  And i should use Ctrl+Alt+F1
to went to the tty , then when i run the command: startxfce4 , it tell me
the X was already running . I should kill the X first or change the display
number to start the xfce . I'm wonder how did this happen ? Did it because
of the connection between Xorg and xfce ?
Can anyone help me? i'm new to gentoo and I have no idea how to deal
with it ? Can i find any log to find something?

-- 
好好学习，天天向上！！！

Re: [gentoo-user] Can I do a one-time boot to non-default kernel in Lilo?

[Bruce Hill, Jr.]

On March 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM Walter Dnes  wrote:

>   Not exactly your typical "remote machine", but the principle is the
> same.  I have a dedicated HTPC machine next to my 50" plasma, connected
> by 50 feet of ethernet cable to my computer den.  I use the TV as a
> monitor when running NHL GameCenter Live.
>
>   I have Lilo set up to "dual boot" between a "production" and an
> "experimental" kernel.  The first (i.e. default) boot option is the
> "production" kernel.  When I set up a new kernel, I try to always run it
> as experimental.  Even if the kernel panics, I don't.  I boot back
> into the production kernel, and try again.  Once the experimental kernel
> has run for a couple of weeks without problems, I copy it over the
> production kernel.
>
>   One problem... if I build a new kernel, is there a way to get the
> "remote machine" to boot to the non-default experimental kernel just
> once?  Any future boots to default to production (unless its a restart
> from hibernate).
>
> --
> Walter Dnes 
>

Unless I misunderstand you, after you issue "lilo" to write to the MBR,
then issue:
lilo -R experimental

where experimental is the name of the kernel image you want to boot. The R
creates a one time command which it will use the next time you boot, then
it will be erased.

And give the kernel an append statement:
append="panic=10"

so that if the kernel does not boot, you get automatically rebooted back
into the good kernel.

--
Happy Penguin Computers>`)
126 Fenco Drive( \
Tupelo, MS 38801^^
662-269-2706; 662-491-8613
support at happypenguincomputers dot com
http://www.happypenguincomputers.com

[gentoo-user] Can I do a one-time boot to non-default kernel in Lilo?

[Walter Dnes]

  Not exactly your typical "remote machine", but the principle is the
same.  I have a dedicated HTPC machine next to my 50" plasma, connected
by 50 feet of ethernet cable to my computer den.  I use the TV as a
monitor when running NHL GameCenter Live.

  I have Lilo set up to "dual boot" between a "production" and an
"experimental" kernel.  The first (i.e. default) boot option is the
"production" kernel.  When I set up a new kernel, I try to always run it
as experimental.  Even if the kernel panics, I don't.  I boot back
into the production kernel, and try again.  Once the experimental kernel
has run for a couple of weeks without problems, I copy it over the
production kernel.

  One problem... if I build a new kernel, is there a way to get the
"remote machine" to boot to the non-default experimental kernel just
once?  Any future boots to default to production (unless its a restart
from hibernate).

-- 
Walter Dnes 

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Dale]

Daddy wrote:
>  
> 
> 
> On March 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM Dale  wrote:
> 
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Aren't you a bit younger than me?  If so, I'm a old fart too.  ;-)
>>
>> [/Bruce]
>>
>> BTW folks, I have met Bruce, and family, in person and we have talked in
>> various ways for years.  We live about 75 miles apart.  My lady friend
>> ain't geeky so I can't stop by when I'm up that way, plus he moved on me
>> again.  Of course, I'm glad he moved from China and back here tho. 
> Whew!!!
>>
>> Dale
>  
> In 13 days I turn 53 -- still younger than NeddySeagoon <:-)}


You are older than me then.  ROFL

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Daddy]

On March 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM Dale  wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> Aren't you a bit younger than me?  If so, I'm a old fart too.  ;-)
>
> [/Bruce]
>
> BTW folks, I have met Bruce, and family, in person and we have talked in
> various ways for years.  We live about 75 miles apart.  My lady friend
> ain't geeky so I can't stop by when I'm up that way, plus he moved on me
> again.  Of course, I'm glad he moved from China and back here tho.
Whew!!!
>
> Dale


In 13 days I turn 53 -- still younger than NeddySeagoon <:-)}

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:07:37 -0400 (EDT)
Daddy  wrote:

> 
> 
> On March 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM Alan McKinnon 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
> > Daddy  wrote:
> >
> > > We have spare parts so tomorrow I'll build a test machine. My
> > > Gentoo knowledge is quite limited, seeing as how we moved back
> > > after 9 years and had to start life over. But I can start by
> > > following this guide, and probably reading and learning about
> > > ebuilds. They're quite different from Slackware's build scripts,
> > > primarily due to dependency checking, etc.
> >
> > Once you've got the hang of building a Gentoo system from scratch,
> > the best thing you can do is read all the man pages from portage
> > and seeing how that compares to what's in simple ebuilds.
> >
> > ebuilds are quite straightforward, they all have a "global" section
> > (my phrase) defining various constants, and code sections for
> > fetching, unpacking, compiling, installing sources and the files to
> > the live system. Quite simple in concept.
> >
> > The fun starts when ebuilds work fine and the dev's machine and get
> > published, but don;t do quite the same thing on your machine :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alan McKinnnon
> > alan.mckin...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> The ebuild in my local overlay that evolved from an official one has
> EAPI=2
> 
> But when I issue "some.ebuild" it has EAPI=3 on this box. And iirc
> another of my boxen has EAPI=4.
> 
> Yes, much studying yet to be done.

Possibly you forked package-1.0 and your ebuild is still at that
version.

The official meanwhile has moved on to versions package-1.1 and
package-1.2; those will take preference over your local ebuild
regardless of precedence order of overlays (i.e. version number always
wins, repo is secondary) 

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Daddy]

On March 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM Alan McKinnon  wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
> Daddy  wrote:
>
> > We have spare parts so tomorrow I'll build a test machine. My Gentoo
> > knowledge is quite limited, seeing as how we moved back after 9 years
> > and had to start life over. But I can start by following this guide,
> > and probably reading and learning about ebuilds. They're quite
> > different from Slackware's build scripts, primarily due to dependency
> > checking, etc.
>
> Once you've got the hang of building a Gentoo system from scratch, the
> best thing you can do is read all the man pages from portage and seeing
> how that compares to what's in simple ebuilds.
>
> ebuilds are quite straightforward, they all have a "global" section (my
> phrase) defining various constants, and code sections for fetching,
> unpacking, compiling, installing sources and the files to the live
> system. Quite simple in concept.
>
> The fun starts when ebuilds work fine and the dev's machine and get
> published, but don;t do quite the same thing on your machine :-)
>
>
>
> --
> Alan McKinnnon
> alan.mckin...@gmail.com



The ebuild in my local overlay that evolved from an official one has EAPI=2

But when I issue "some.ebuild" it has EAPI=3 on this box. And iirc another
of my boxen has EAPI=4.

Yes, much studying yet to be done.

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Daddy]

On March 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM David Abbott  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy 
wrote:
>
> > First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing lists
and
> > forums are more my speed.
> [snip]
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Bruce Hill
> Hi Bruce,
> You are cordially invited to join the "Gentoo Old Timers Club" [1]
> All the best :)
> David
> [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml
> --
> David Abbott (dabbott)
>

Thanks, David. I remember you from LQ.

I'm also usually found in ##Neddyseagoon on FreeNode. <:-)}

Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?

[Alex Schuster]

YoYo Siska writes:

> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:35:05PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > I use an ext2 filesystem for portage, it's still the fastest out
> > there. Journals are unnecessary because its such a small filesystem,
> > and if it does get damaged I can just reformat and sync again.

Replaying a reiserfs journal in case of an unclean reboot also takes about
the same time as an whole e2fsck, so I switched to ext2. There was no
real need to make the switch, I just wanted to re-create this file system
that has been synced very often now.

> I use an ext2 partition in a 500MB file image on most of my computers.

I also did this in the past, on systems where I did not use LVM. Nowadays
I prefer the latter.

> Its important to check the inode count on such small filesytem, as
> mke2fs' default inode ration for such size is 4096, which is too
> low for portage:

Yes, happened to me more than once...

> mke2fs -f -b1024 -i2048 /usr/img_portage

That's what I did. Well, without the container file.

Thanks to all who replied! I learnt something, like so often when reading
here.

Wonko

[gentoo-user] How are Fn-F# ACPI events mapped?

[Mark Knecht]

Hi,
   I'm trying to figure out how my Asus laptop maps function key
events. This is being driven by an emerge message telling me that the
acpi4asus package is being obsoleted and removed in 30 days and
replaced by an in-kernel driver. I've removed the package and rebuilt
my kernels to use this driver, and for vanilla-sources-3.2.7 the
results are similar as with the acpi4asus package.

   However, for vanilla-sources-3.2.9 the only key that is doing
anything seems to be Fn-F1 which says 'button/sleep' (using
acpi_listen) but actually just turns on the screen saver as best I can
tell.

   Note that even with 3.2.7 most keys don't actually work, but at
least they all produce acpi_listen events. The only ones that do work
in 3.2.7 and earlier are:

Fn-F1 - screen saver
Fn-F5 - turns off screen but doesn't seem to generate an ACPI event in
acpi_listen (may be hardware mapped)
Fn-F11 - turn volume down
Fn-F12 - turn volume up

I haven't tested the external monitor one.

   The ones I really want to figure out are Fn-F3 & F4 as they turn
the keyboard lighting up and down. With 3.2.7 I had lighting, but with
3.2.9 I have no keyboard lighting at all so it will have hard to use
in the dark.

   Before I call this a 3.2.9 regression I figured I should determine
if I'm supposed to configure this stuff by hand, or maybe load some
new machine specific package that sets up the mappings.

Thanks in advance,
Mark


vanilla-sources-3.2.9

slinky events # acpi_listen
button/sleep SLPB 0080 0003
button/sleep SLPB 0080 0004



vanilla-sources-3.2.7

slinky ~ # acpi_listen
button/sleep SLPB 0080 0001
hotkey ATKD 005d 
hotkey ATKD 007e 
hotkey ATKD 00c5 
hotkey ATKD 00c4 
hotkey ATKD 002e 
hotkey ATKD 001a 
hotkey ATKD 0034 
hotkey ATKD 0033 
hotkey ATKD 0034 0001
hotkey ATKD 0033 0001
hotkey ATKD 0061 
hotkey ATKD 006b 
hotkey ATKD 0032 
hotkey ATKD 0032 0001
hotkey ATKD 0032 0002
hotkey ATKD 0031 
hotkey ATKD 0031 0001
hotkey ATKD 0031 0002
hotkey ATKD 0030 
hotkey ATKD 0030 0001
hotkey ATKD 0030 0002
hotkey ATKD 0030 0003

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Walter Dnes]

Correcting a typo pointed out in the earlier post today.

  This revision makes 2 changes...

A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional.  udev-181
and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends
on.  Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine.

B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as
requested in user feedback.

  The usual warnings apply...
* this is a beta
* use a spare test machine
* if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be
  an unbootable linux
* even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable
  linux


1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at
   /dev

* If you prefer to edit .config directly, set
  CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y

* If you prefer "make menuconfig", the route is as shown below.  Note
  that the "Autount devtmpfs..." option won't appear until you enable
  "Maintain a devtmpf..." option.

make menuconfig
  Device Drivers  --->
Generic Driver Options  --->
  [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev
  [*]   Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs

  Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel.


2) Set up for emerging busybox.  busybox requires the "mdev" flag in
this situation.  The "static" flag is probably also a good idea.  In
file /etc/portage/package.use add the line

sys-apps/busybox static mdev

   Now, "emerge busybox"


3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least

#!/bin/busybox ash
mount -t proc proc /proc
mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys
exec /sbin/init

  This should be enough for most users.  If you have an unusual setup,
you may need additional stuff in there.  Remember to
"chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc" to make it executable.

 In the bootloader "append" line, include "init=/sbin/linuxrc".  If
you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes.  If
you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization.


4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev.  Type
   the following 2 commands at the command line
rc-update del udev sysinit
rc-update add mdev sysinit


5) reboot to your new kernel.  You're now running without using udev.


6) Remove udev as per the following instructions...

* execute the following command at the commandline
emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev

* In file /etc/portage/package.mask, append the line
sys-fs/udev
  Create the file if it doesn't already exist.  You now have a totally
udev-free machine

-- 
Walter Dnes 

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:10:14 -0400
> David Abbott  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing
>>> lists and forums are more my speed.
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Kindest regards,
>>>
>>> Bruce Hill
>> Hi Bruce,
>> You are cordially invited to join the "Gentoo Old Timers Club" [1]
>> All the best :)
>> David
>> [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml
> 
> My mother swears blind I watched England win the World Cup but I don't
> remember (being only 1 year old at the time).
> 
> I'm still going to call myself a members (point 5 applies)
> 
> 


Bruce,

Aren't you a bit younger than me?  If so, I'm a old fart too.  ;-)

[/Bruce]

BTW folks, I have met Bruce, and family, in person and we have talked in
various ways for years.  We live about 75 miles apart.  My lady friend
ain't geeky so I can't stop by when I'm up that way, plus he moved on me
again.  Of course, I'm glad he moved from China and back here tho.  Whew!!!

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

[gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[walt]

On 03/11/2012 05:16 AM, Jorge Martínez López wrote:
> Hi!

Hi Jorge.

> I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM

I'm just curious why you use a separate /usr, and why you are
willing to struggle to keep it that way.  Several people have
posted opinions here in recent months, but I don't recall that
you are one of them.

Disclaimer:  I don't have a dog in this fight.  I just want to
understand the underlying principles.

Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:10:14 -0400
David Abbott  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy
>  wrote:
> 
> > First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing
> > lists and forums are more my speed.
> [snip]
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Bruce Hill
> Hi Bruce,
> You are cordially invited to join the "Gentoo Old Timers Club" [1]
> All the best :)
> David
> [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml

My mother swears blind I watched England win the World Cup but I don't
remember (being only 1 year old at the time).

I'm still going to call myself a members (point 5 applies)


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
Daddy  wrote:

> We have spare parts so tomorrow I'll build a test machine. My Gentoo
> knowledge is quite limited, seeing as how we moved back after 9 years
> and had to start life over. But I can start by following this guide,
> and probably reading and learning about ebuilds. They're quite
> different from Slackware's build scripts, primarily due to dependency
> checking, etc.

Once you've got the hang of building a Gentoo system from scratch, the
best thing you can do is read all the man pages from portage and seeing
how that compares to what's in simple ebuilds.

ebuilds are quite straightforward, they all have a "global" section (my
phrase) defining various constants, and code sections for fetching,
unpacking, compiling, installing sources and the files to the live
system. Quite simple in concept.

The fun starts when ebuilds work fine and the dev's machine and get
published, but don;t do quite the same thing on your machine :-)



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[David Abbott]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy  wrote:

> First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing lists and
> forums are more my speed.
[snip]
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Bruce Hill
Hi Bruce,
You are cordially invited to join the "Gentoo Old Timers Club" [1]
All the best :)
David
[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml
-- 
David Abbott (dabbott)

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Daddy]

On March 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM Walter Dnes  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 07:27:05AM -0400, Daddy wrote
>
> > Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of
> > the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd?
>
>   It's my reaction to the "Windows-isation" and "Firefox-isation" of
> linux.  So far I've managed to keep systemd and hal and dbus and
> pulseaudio off my machines.  I agree with Linus Torvalds that linux is
> getting bloated and huge and scary...
> 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/


We share the same opinions there. To me the Linux distros have shot their
desktops in the foot; instead of getting _better_ than the competition, IMO
they've actually gotten worse in the last 5 years.

Will joyfully read that from Linus after my nap. (Probably did long ago and
forgot it.)


> > One minor typo to point out:
> >
> > /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask
>
>   Thanks; fixed now.
>


Even when I can't offer code changes, typos are easy (having grown up in
the newspaper and printing business).


> > I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing
> > some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers.
>
>   I have a couple of regular desktops here at home, and a desktop
> dedicted to my TV, plus a netbook, and a laptop.  So far, I've run into
> only one situation where laziness on my part ends up requiring udev.
> The laptop has an ATI Radeon chip that requires emerging radeon-ucode.
> That ebuild simply dumps a bunch of binary blobs into a library folder.
> The kernel loads one of the binary blobs at bootup.  Radeon-ucode has
> blobs for 2 or 3 dozen differnt Radeon GPU models.  If I leave all the
> binary blobs in the library folder, the kernel needs udev to figure out
> which blob to load.  But, if I leave only the correct blob for my GPU in
> the library folder (move/delete all the others), it loads properly
> without any help from udev.
>
> --
> Walter Dnes 
>

iamben in #gentoo on IRC has piqued my interest to build a HTPC. Friday I
put a 60G SSD and a 1TB mechanical drive on a board, partitioned the SDD,
and d/led stage3 and portage before stopping. That and the earlier
mentioned test machine will be my builds for tomorrow. Actually the HTPC is
a strange idea, since we don't watch or even own a TV, but it might be a
way to sell some of this hardware on my shelf.

Kindest regards,
Bruce Hill
--
sig to come after punching a hole in the LAN and starting mutt on the
server

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Daddy]

On March 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM Alan McKinnon 
wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
> Daddy  wrote:
>
> > On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >   This revision makes 2 changes...
> > >
> > > A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional.
> > > udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that
> > > kmod depends on.  Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on
> > > your machine.
> > >
> > > B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as
> > > requested in user feedback.
> > >
> > >   The usual warnings apply...
> > > * this is a beta
> > > * use a spare test machine
> > > * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might
> > > be an unbootable linux
> > > * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an
> > > unbootable linux
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs
> > > filesystem at /dev
> > >
> > > * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set
> > >   CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
> > >
> > > * If you prefer "make menuconfig", the route is as shown below.
> > > Note that the "Autount devtmpfs..." option won't appear until you
> > > enable "Maintain a devtmpf..." option.
> > >
> > > make menuconfig
> > >   Device Drivers  --->
> > > Generic Driver Options  --->
> > >   [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev
> > >   [*]   Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the
> > rootfs
> > >
> > >   Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) Set up for emerging busybox.  busybox requires the "mdev" flag in
> > > this situation.  The "static" flag is probably also a good idea.  In
> > > file /etc/portage/package.use add the line
> > >
> > > sys-apps/busybox static mdev
> > >
> > >Now, "emerge busybox"
> > >
> > >
> > > 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least
> > >
> > > #!/bin/busybox ash
> > > mount -t proc proc /proc
> > > mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys
> > > exec /sbin/init
> > >
> > >   This should be enough for most users.  If you have an unusual
> > > setup, you may need additional stuff in there.  Remember to
> > > "chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc" to make it executable.
> > >
> > >  In the bootloader "append" line, include "init=/sbin/linuxrc".  If
> > > you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the
> > > changes.  If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant
> > > initialization.
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev.
> > > Type the following 2 commands at the command line
> > > rc-update del udev sysinit
> > > rc-update add mdev sysinit
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) reboot to your new kernel.  You're now running without using
> > > udev.
> > >
> > >
> > > 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions...
> > >
> > > * execute the following command at the commandline
> > > emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev
> > >
> > > * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line
> > > sys-fs/udev
> > >   Create the file if it doesn't already exist.  You now have a
> > > totally udev-free machine
> > >
> > > --
> > > Walter Dnes 
> > >
> >
> > Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the
> > devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd?
>
>
> No, it's his reaction to the fantastical amount of kitchen-sinking
> going on surrounding udev. Most specifically, it's the recent
> "requirement" foisted on the udev-using community to require
> either /usr to be part of / or to use an initramfs.
>
> Walter simply wants to show that mdev is a suitable replacement for
> udev in simple environments eg embedded, simple desktops without
> complex hotplug requirements, and servers.
>
> Canek will no doubt chip in about how this is the way things are going,
> it is inevitable, the boot sequence is becoming complex and various
> other rehashings of what's coming out of udev upstream.
>
> However, something needs to be pointed out in that regard. What udev
> upstream is saying is probably quite true, but only within the limits
> of the environment in which they work and udev is designed to handle -
> sophisticated desktops. The three cases I mentioned are perfectly valid
> use-cases, comprise a large percentage of the Linux installed base,
> should be catered to and have no need of the sophistication current
> udev aims to provide.
>
> As such, mdev is a good fit and we can add Walter to the long list of
> people before him who selflessly worked to make our software work
> better.
>
> >
> > One minor typo to point out:
> >
> > /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask
> >
> > I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some
> > hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers.
>
>
> Welcome to the list, you'll soon get to know all the personalities
> here. We have at least one of everything - class clowns, old farts,
> newbies, voices of reason, influential devs and ev

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 07:27:05AM -0400, Daddy wrote

> Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of
> the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd?

  It's my reaction to the "Windows-isation" and "Firefox-isation" of
linux.  So far I've managed to keep systemd and hal and dbus and
pulseaudio off my machines.  I agree with Linus Torvalds that linux is
getting bloated and huge and scary...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/

> One minor typo to point out:
> 
> /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask

  Thanks; fixed now.

> I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing
> some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers.

  I have a couple of regular desktops here at home, and a desktop
dedicted to my TV, plus a netbook, and a laptop.  So far, I've run into
only one situation where laziness on my part ends up requiring udev.
The laptop has an ATI Radeon chip that requires emerging radeon-ucode.
That ebuild simply dumps a bunch of binary blobs into a library folder.
The kernel loads one of the binary blobs at bootup.  Radeon-ucode has
blobs for 2 or 3 dozen differnt Radeon GPU models.  If I leave all the
binary blobs in the library folder, the kernel needs udev to figure out
which blob to load.  But, if I leave only the correct blob for my GPU in
the library folder (move/delete all the others), it loads properly
without any help from udev.

-- 
Walter Dnes 

Re: [gentoo-user] how updating to gnome3 ?!

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Tamer Higazi  wrote:
> Hi people!
> I want to upgrade gnome 2.32 to gnome 3.
>
> First question, is it now officially supported by the gentoo team or
> should I keep my fingers away of it?!
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/gnome/howtos/gnome-3.2-upgrade.xml
>
> doesn't tell me a lot how to accomplish this task. Is there any official
> documentation telling me how to doit, unmasking, flags etc

I don't think any part of the GNOME 3.x stack is masked anymore, but
it is still unstable. GNOME 3 is completely supported in Gentoo: I'm
running GNOME 3.2, and everything works without a hitch. But, if you
are running stable, and you are not used to fiddle in /etc/portage to
unmask or keyword packages, I would recommend to wait for it to be
stabilized. I don't think it will take that much longer.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
> Daddy  wrote:
>
>> On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >   This revision makes 2 changes...
>> >
>> > A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional.
>> > udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that
>> > kmod depends on.  Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on
>> > your machine.
>> >
>> > B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as
>> > requested in user feedback.
>> >
>> >   The usual warnings apply...
>> > * this is a beta
>> > * use a spare test machine
>> > * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might
>> > be an unbootable linux
>> > * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an
>> > unbootable linux
>> >
>> >
>> > 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs
>> > filesystem at /dev
>> >
>> > * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set
>> >   CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
>> >
>> > * If you prefer "make menuconfig", the route is as shown below.
>> > Note that the "Autount devtmpfs..." option won't appear until you
>> > enable "Maintain a devtmpf..." option.
>> >
>> > make menuconfig
>> >   Device Drivers  --->
>> >     Generic Driver Options  --->
>> >       [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev
>> >       [*]   Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the
>> rootfs
>> >
>> >   Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2) Set up for emerging busybox.  busybox requires the "mdev" flag in
>> > this situation.  The "static" flag is probably also a good idea.  In
>> > file /etc/portage/package.use add the line
>> >
>> > sys-apps/busybox static mdev
>> >
>> >    Now, "emerge busybox"
>> >
>> >
>> > 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least
>> >
>> > #!/bin/busybox ash
>> > mount -t proc proc /proc
>> > mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys
>> > exec /sbin/init
>> >
>> >   This should be enough for most users.  If you have an unusual
>> > setup, you may need additional stuff in there.  Remember to
>> > "chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc" to make it executable.
>> >
>> >  In the bootloader "append" line, include "init=/sbin/linuxrc".  If
>> > you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the
>> > changes.  If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant
>> > initialization.
>> >
>> >
>> > 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev.
>> > Type the following 2 commands at the command line
>> > rc-update del udev sysinit
>> > rc-update add mdev sysinit
>> >
>> >
>> > 5) reboot to your new kernel.  You're now running without using
>> > udev.
>> >
>> >
>> > 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions...
>> >
>> > * execute the following command at the commandline
>> > emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev
>> >
>> > * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line
>> > sys-fs/udev
>> >   Create the file if it doesn't already exist.  You now have a
>> > totally udev-free machine
>> >
>> > --
>> > Walter Dnes 
>> >
>>
>> Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the
>> devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd?
>
>
> No, it's his reaction to the fantastical amount of kitchen-sinking
> going on surrounding udev. Most specifically, it's the recent
> "requirement" foisted on the udev-using community to require
> either /usr to be part of / or to use an initramfs.
>
> Walter simply wants to show that mdev is a suitable replacement for
> udev in simple environments eg embedded, simple desktops without
> complex hotplug requirements, and servers.
>
> Canek will no doubt chip in about how this is the way things are going,
> it is inevitable, the boot sequence is becoming complex and various
> other rehashings of what's coming out of udev upstream.

No, I will not ;)

As I have said before, I admire a lot what Walter et al. are doing,
and as I always will say, this is how our community works: people
writing the code (as Walter is doing) are the ones that get things
done. This is the correct (and only) way to address a problem
(perceived or real) with the current status: write the code that does
the thing the way you want it. Complaining and crying that you don't
like the direction some part of the stack is taking is at best a waste
of time, and at worst idiotic. Actually doing something about it (as
Walter is doing) is the smart thing to do.

I personally will not use Walt's work. Not in my desktop, laptop, nor
in my servers or embedded systems (I don't know if my Media Center
qualifies as "embedded", if I'm truthful); they all run amazingly well
with systemd. But that's my decision: if anybody else wants to go the
mdev route, that's their absolute right.

This is open source: code talks. If anyone with enough interest and
capabilities wants to implement any feature (or anti feature) they
want, they will. That's what Walter is doing, and I sincerely salute
that effort.

Re: [gentoo-user] tracking IT work

[Stefan G. Weichinger]

Am 09.03.2012 14:37, schrieb Stefan Schmiedl:
> Am 08.03.2012 20:00, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
> 
>> oh, sorry, vi(m) here :-P
> 
> I'm using a plain text file (ok |-separated values) for this and a
> single macro:
> 
>   imap m \| "=strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M")pa¶
> 
> Then, in insert mode \m appends " | " after the cursor,
> and you have just fixed the start or stop time for the entry.
> 
> My work log looks like this:
> 
> client | item | start | stop
> 
> and once it's been run through my billing script, the billed items
> are tagged
> 
> client | item | start | stop | billed

interesting approach, thanks!

Re: [gentoo-user] hard drive encryption

[Florian Philipp]

Am 11.03.2012 16:38, schrieb Valmor de Almeida:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have not looked at encryption before and find myself in a situation
> that I have to encrypt my hard drive. I keep /, /boot, and swap outside
> LVM, everything else is under LVM. I think all I need to do is to
> encrypt /home which is under LVM. I use reiserfs.
> 
> I would appreciate suggestion and pointers on what it is practical and
> simple in order to accomplish this task with a minimum of downtime.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Valmor
> 


Is it acceptable for you to have a commandline prompt for the password
when booting? In that case you can use LUKS with the /etc/init.d/dmcrypt
init script. /etc/conf.d/dmcrypt should contain some examples. As you
want to encrypt an LVM volume, the lvm init script needs to be started
before this. As I see it, there is no strict dependency between those
two scripts. You can add this by adding this line to /etc/rc.conf:
rc_dmcrypt_after="lvm"

For creating a LUKS-encrypted volume, look at
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/DM-Crypt

You won't need most of what is written there; just section 9,
"Administering LUKS" and the kernel config in section 2, "Assumptions".

Concerning downtime, I'm not aware of any solution that avoids copying
the data over to the new volume. If downtime is absolutely critical, ask
and we can work something out that minimizes the time.

Regards,
Florian Philipp



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

2012/3/11 Jorge Martínez López :
> Hi!
>
> I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut
> thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not
> find some scripts.
>
> The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not
> find /usr. So what I did was to include the fstab-sys smodule in
> dracut:
>
> /etc/dracut.conf
>
> # Dracut modules to omit
> omit_dracutmodules+="usrmount"
>
> # Dracut modules to add to the default
> add_dracutmodules+="fstab-sys"
>
> Then I created /etc/fstab.sys with just the /usr partition
>
> /dev/disk/by-uuid/90d82b02-e6c2-4011-940e-783d12b0c4fe          /usr          
>   ext4            noatime         1 2
>
> Dracut could only find the partition by using the uuid (use blkid to
> find it easily).

> The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from
> being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it).

Mmmh. Could you try to use LABEL= in /etc/fstab (not /etc/fstab), and
see if that way it gets mounted, and only once? The udev developers
recommend using either UUID or LABEL; and LABEL it's easier (and
prettier) to set.

> The last obstacle is /etc/mtab. By the time /usr is mounted I believe
> / is mounted as read only, so mount cannot update /etc/mtab. The
> trivial solutions is to delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink to
> /proc/mounts . In that case it is always up to date.

I think the link is to /proc/self/mounts; /proc/mounts it's a link to
it, actually.

> Of course, YMMV. Be careful when changing things that can prevent your
> machine from booting and make sure you have a live CD at hand.

Good advice. Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Grant Edwards]

On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziaras  wrote:
> On 11/03/12 18:14, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziaras  wrote:
>>
>>> There is no "display from".  I use Thunderbird and it reports the
>>> "from" correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.)
>>> All mail clients do that.
>>
>> Outlook never used to.  It always used to display the "on behalf of"
>> stuff.
>>
>>> They use the "From:" address.  It's a standard specified in an RFC.
>>
>> Oh, well Microsoft has never violated an RFC, so I'm sure you're right.
>
> GMail does not generate an "on behalf of" header either.
>
> I just tested it.  I've sent an email through GMail's SMTP.  Here are
> the relevant headers of the email that arrived.  "my_other_address"
> is what I used as "From:"
>
>Return-path: 
>Envelope-to: my_other_address
>Sender: Nikos Chantziaras 
>From: my_other_address

Ah!  Apparently gmail has fixed the "sender" problem.  According to
wikipedia, they now allow you to use somebody else's SMTP server:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail#On_behalf_of

That's not what you're doing?

If they have indeed fixed it so you can send mail using Google's SMTP
server and have something other than your gmail address show up in the
"sender" field, then it's time to celebrate.

> The OP mentioned that the problem is that he wants to subscribe to a 
> mailing list, but that list sends the verification mail to the "Sender:" 
> address rather than the "From:" address.  Which sounds very weird to me. 
>   If you want to subscribe the "From:" address to a list, why would they 
> want to verify the "Sender:" address instead?  Makes no sense.

Dunno.  I didn't relly understand what the OP was saying.  I was
confirming (erroneously), the gmail would always put the gmail address
in the "sender" header, which then triggered Outlook to display the
"on behalf of" stuff.  That issue has apparently been fixed.

-- 
Grant

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 11/03/12 18:14, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziaras  wrote:


There is no "display from".  I use Thunderbird and it reports the "from"
correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.)  All mail
clients do that.


Outlook never used to.  It always used to display the "on behalf of"
stuff.


They use the "From:" address.  It's a standard specified in an RFC.


Oh, well Microsoft has never violated an RFC, so I'm sure you're right.


GMail does not generate an "on behalf of" header either.  I just tested 
it.  I've sent an email through GMail's SMTP.  Here are the relevant 
headers of the email that arrived.  "my_other_address" is what I used as 
"From:"


  Return-path: 
  Envelope-to: my_other_address
  Sender: Nikos Chantziaras 
  From: my_other_address

The OP mentioned that the problem is that he wants to subscribe to a 
mailing list, but that list sends the verification mail to the "Sender:" 
address rather than the "From:" address.  Which sounds very weird to me. 
 If you want to subscribe the "From:" address to a list, why would they 
want to verify the "Sender:" address instead?  Makes no sense.

Re: [gentoo-user] how updating to gnome3 ?!

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:01:41 +0100
Tamer Higazi  wrote:

> Hi people!
> I want to upgrade gnome 2.32 to gnome 3.
> 
> First question, is it now officially supported by the gentoo team or
> should I keep my fingers away of it?!
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/gnome/howtos/gnome-3.2-upgrade.xml
> 
> doesn't tell me a lot how to accomplish this task. Is there any
> official documentation telling me how to doit, unmasking, flags
> etc
> 
> 
> for any advise I would thank you.

What sort of information are you looking for?

gnome-3 is marked unstable, so if you run ~x86 or ~amd64 just

emerge -av gnome

and deal with any breakage. This is generally how gentoo works for
everything. What were you expecting in terms of documentation ?


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] hard drive encryption

[Valmor de Almeida]

Hello,

I have not looked at encryption before and find myself in a situation
that I have to encrypt my hard drive. I keep /, /boot, and swap outside
LVM, everything else is under LVM. I think all I need to do is to
encrypt /home which is under LVM. I use reiserfs.

I would appreciate suggestion and pointers on what it is practical and
simple in order to accomplish this task with a minimum of downtime.

Thanks,

--
Valmor

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Grant Edwards]

On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziaras  wrote:

> There is no "display from".  I use Thunderbird and it reports the "from" 
> correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.)  All mail 
> clients do that.

Outlook never used to.  It always used to display the "on behalf of"
stuff.

> They use the "From:" address.  It's a standard specified in an RFC.

Oh, well Microsoft has never violated an RFC, so I'm sure you're right.

-- 
Grant

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 11/03/12 17:18, Pandu Poluan wrote:


On Mar 11, 2012 10:08 PM, "Nikos Chantziaras" mailto:rea...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 >
 > On 11/03/12 16:49, Pandu Poluan wrote:
 >>
 >>
 >> On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, "András Csányi" mailto:sayusi.a...@gmail.com>
 >> >> wrote:
 >> >
 >> > Dear All,
 >> >
 >> > I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
 >> > my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu 
, and
 >> the email address is
 >> > sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu 
>.
Unfortunately,
 >>
 >> gmail smtp always overwrite the
 >> > sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list
 >> > with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine
 >> > the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to
 >> > authenticate.
 >> >
 >> > I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the
 >> > setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution
 >> > for this?
 >> >
 >> > Thanks in advance!
 >> >
 >> > András
 >> >
 >>
 >> See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own
 >> hosted website (with its own SMTP server).
 >>
 >> Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as
 >> "some...@gmail.com 
> on behalf of
 >> some...@yourdomain.com 
>".
 >
 >
 > That's also wrong.  I use "From:" addresses that don't have any SMTP
associated with them.  GMail only touches the "Sender:" address, not the
"From:" address.
 >
 >

Yes, header-wise, the "From:" is not changed.

But, client-side, especially on Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express,
the *display* From: will look like that.


There is no "display from".  I use Thunderbird and it reports the "from" 
correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.)  All mail 
clients do that.  They use the "From:" address.  It's a standard 
specified in an RFC.

[gentoo-user] how updating to gnome3 ?!

[Tamer Higazi]

Hi people!
I want to upgrade gnome 2.32 to gnome 3.

First question, is it now officially supported by the gentoo team or
should I keep my fingers away of it?!

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/gnome/howtos/gnome-3.2-upgrade.xml

doesn't tell me a lot how to accomplish this task. Is there any official
documentation telling me how to doit, unmasking, flags etc


for any advise I would thank you.


Tamer

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mar 11, 2012 10:08 PM, "Nikos Chantziaras"  wrote:
>
> On 11/03/12 16:49, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, "András Csányi" > > wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Dear All,
>>  >
>>  > I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
>>  > my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu , and
>> the email address is
>>  > sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu . Unfortunately,
>>
>> gmail smtp always overwrite the
>>  > sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list
>>  > with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine
>>  > the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to
>>  > authenticate.
>>  >
>>  > I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the
>>  > setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution
>>  > for this?
>>  >
>>  > Thanks in advance!
>>  >
>>  > András
>>  >
>>
>> See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own
>> hosted website (with its own SMTP server).
>>
>> Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as
>> "some...@gmail.com  on behalf of
>> some...@yourdomain.com ".
>
>
> That's also wrong.  I use "From:" addresses that don't have any SMTP
associated with them.  GMail only touches the "Sender:" address, not the
"From:" address.
>
>

Yes, header-wise, the "From:" is not changed.

But, client-side, especially on Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express,
the *display* From: will look like that.

Rgds,

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 11/03/12 16:49, Pandu Poluan wrote:


On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, "András Csányi" mailto:sayusi.a...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 >
 > Dear All,
 >
 > I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
 > my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu , and
the email address is
 > sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu . Unfortunately,
gmail smtp always overwrite the
 > sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list
 > with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine
 > the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to
 > authenticate.
 >
 > I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the
 > setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution
 > for this?
 >
 > Thanks in advance!
 >
 > András
 >

See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own
hosted website (with its own SMTP server).

Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as
"some...@gmail.com  on behalf of
some...@yourdomain.com ".


That's also wrong.  I use "From:" addresses that don't have any SMTP 
associated with them.  GMail only touches the "Sender:" address, not the 
"From:" address.

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 11/03/12 16:41, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2012-03-10, Andr??s Cs??nyi  wrote:


I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is
sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the
sender email address.


Indeed it does.  AFAICT, there's nothing you can do about it.


If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email
address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond
always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate.


That's how gmail works.  It always forces the "from" address to be
your gmail account.


It doesn't.  It works OK here.  I think the OP means the "Sender", not 
the "From:" address.

Re: [gentoo-user] gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, "András Csányi"  wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
> my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is
> sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the
> sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list
> with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine
> the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to
> authenticate.
>
> I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the
> setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution
> for this?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> András
>

See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own
hosted website (with its own SMTP server).

Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as "
some...@gmail.com on behalf of some...@yourdomain.com".

After you have your own publicly accessible SMTP server, configure Gmail to
send email via your SMTP server, then make the alternate account as your
default account.

You can also configure your domain's SMTP server to not store your emails
locally, but forward to your Gmail account. This way, everything will be
handled through a single interface, i.e., Gmail's.

Rgds,

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Grant Edwards]

On 2012-03-10, Andr??s Cs??nyi  wrote:

> I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
> my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is
> sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the
> sender email address.

Indeed it does.  AFAICT, there's nothing you can do about it.

> If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email
> address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond
> always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate.

That's how gmail works.  It always forces the "from" address to be
your gmail account.  IIRC, there's supposed to be a way to set the
"reply-to" address to a different address as long as that address is
one of the one's you have "authenticated".

> I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the
> setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any
> solution for this?

I don't think there is a solution other than use a different SMTP
server.

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Daddy  wrote:

> On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes 
> wrote:
> 
> >   This revision makes 2 changes...
> >
> > A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional.
> > udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that
> > kmod depends on.  Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on
> > your machine.
> >
> > B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as
> > requested in user feedback.
> >
> >   The usual warnings apply...
> > * this is a beta
> > * use a spare test machine
> > * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might
> > be an unbootable linux
> > * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an
> > unbootable linux
> >
> >
> > 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs
> > filesystem at /dev
> >
> > * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set
> >   CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
> >
> > * If you prefer "make menuconfig", the route is as shown below.
> > Note that the "Autount devtmpfs..." option won't appear until you
> > enable "Maintain a devtmpf..." option.
> >
> > make menuconfig
> >   Device Drivers  --->
> > Generic Driver Options  --->
> >   [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev
> >   [*]   Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the
> rootfs
> >
> >   Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel.
> >
> >
> > 2) Set up for emerging busybox.  busybox requires the "mdev" flag in
> > this situation.  The "static" flag is probably also a good idea.  In
> > file /etc/portage/package.use add the line
> >
> > sys-apps/busybox static mdev
> >
> >Now, "emerge busybox"
> >
> >
> > 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least
> >
> > #!/bin/busybox ash
> > mount -t proc proc /proc
> > mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys
> > exec /sbin/init
> >
> >   This should be enough for most users.  If you have an unusual
> > setup, you may need additional stuff in there.  Remember to
> > "chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc" to make it executable.
> >
> >  In the bootloader "append" line, include "init=/sbin/linuxrc".  If
> > you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the
> > changes.  If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant
> > initialization.
> >
> >
> > 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev.
> > Type the following 2 commands at the command line
> > rc-update del udev sysinit
> > rc-update add mdev sysinit
> >
> >
> > 5) reboot to your new kernel.  You're now running without using
> > udev.
> >
> >
> > 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions...
> >
> > * execute the following command at the commandline
> > emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev
> >
> > * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line
> > sys-fs/udev
> >   Create the file if it doesn't already exist.  You now have a
> > totally udev-free machine
> >
> > --
> > Walter Dnes 
> >
> 
> Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the
> devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd?


No, it's his reaction to the fantastical amount of kitchen-sinking
going on surrounding udev. Most specifically, it's the recent
"requirement" foisted on the udev-using community to require
either /usr to be part of / or to use an initramfs.

Walter simply wants to show that mdev is a suitable replacement for
udev in simple environments eg embedded, simple desktops without
complex hotplug requirements, and servers.

Canek will no doubt chip in about how this is the way things are going,
it is inevitable, the boot sequence is becoming complex and various
other rehashings of what's coming out of udev upstream.

However, something needs to be pointed out in that regard. What udev
upstream is saying is probably quite true, but only within the limits
of the environment in which they work and udev is designed to handle -
sophisticated desktops. The three cases I mentioned are perfectly valid
use-cases, comprise a large percentage of the Linux installed base,
should be catered to and have no need of the sophistication current
udev aims to provide.

As such, mdev is a good fit and we can add Walter to the long list of
people before him who selflessly worked to make our software work
better.

> 
> One minor typo to point out:
> 
> /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask
> 
> I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some
> hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers.


Welcome to the list, you'll soon get to know all the personalities
here. We have at least one of everything - class clowns, old farts,
newbies, voices of reason, influential devs and even the occasional
fellow who knows what he's talking about.

:-)




-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mar 11, 2012 6:30 PM, "Daddy"  wrote:
>
> On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes  wrote:
>
> >   This revision makes 2 changes...
> >
> > A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional.  udev-181
> > and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends
> > on.  Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine.
> >
> > B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as
> > requested in user feedback.
> >
> >   The usual warnings apply...
> > * this is a beta
> > * use a spare test machine
> > * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be
> >   an unbootable linux
> > * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable
> >   linux
> >
> >
> > 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at
> >/dev
> >
> > * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set
> >   CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
> >
> > * If you prefer "make menuconfig", the route is as shown below.  Note
> >   that the "Autount devtmpfs..." option won't appear until you enable
> >   "Maintain a devtmpf..." option.
> >
> > make menuconfig
> >   Device Drivers  --->
> > Generic Driver Options  --->
> >   [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev
> >   [*]   Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the
rootfs
> >
> >   Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel.
> >
> >
> > 2) Set up for emerging busybox.  busybox requires the "mdev" flag in
> > this situation.  The "static" flag is probably also a good idea.  In
> > file /etc/portage/package.use add the line
> >
> > sys-apps/busybox static mdev
> >
> >Now, "emerge busybox"
> >
> >
> > 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least
> >
> > #!/bin/busybox ash
> > mount -t proc proc /proc
> > mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys
> > exec /sbin/init
> >
> >   This should be enough for most users.  If you have an unusual setup,
> > you may need additional stuff in there.  Remember to
> > "chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc" to make it executable.
> >
> >  In the bootloader "append" line, include "init=/sbin/linuxrc".  If
> > you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes.  If
> > you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization.
> >
> >
> > 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev.  Type
> >the following 2 commands at the command line
> > rc-update del udev sysinit
> > rc-update add mdev sysinit
> >
> >
> > 5) reboot to your new kernel.  You're now running without using udev.
> >
> >
> > 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions...
> >
> > * execute the following command at the commandline
> > emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev
> >
> > * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line
> > sys-fs/udev
> >   Create the file if it doesn't already exist.  You now have a totally
> > udev-free machine
> >
> > --
> > Walter Dnes 
> >
>
> Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the
devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd?
>
>
>
> One minor typo to point out:
>
>
>
> /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask
>
>
>
> I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some
hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers.
>
>

I'm one of the long-suffering beta-tester for Walt ;-)

I've tested all his procedures (except this one), and up to now found no
problems. One caveat: my tests are all on servers
(test-dev-staging-production). We -- that is, Gentoo users who want to go
udev-less -- will certainly appreciate feedback from desktop users.

Rgds,

[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 10/03/12 22:56, András Csányi wrote:

Dear All,

I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is
sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the
sender email address.


Doesn't the verification email always go to the "From:" address rather 
than the "Sender:" address?  Doesn't make sense otherwise, since the 
address you want to subscribe to the list is the "From:" one, not the 
"Sender:" one.

Re: [gentoo-user] gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[András Csányi]

On 11 March 2012 13:49, Stroller  wrote:
>
> On 10 March 2012, at 20:56, András Csányi wrote:
>> … I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
>> my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is
>> sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the
>> sender email address. …  Do you know any solution
>> for this?
>
> Use a different SMTP server.
>
> I don't believe there's any alternative.
>
> Have you considered Postfix?

What do you mean when you say Postfix? If I use postfix and google
smtp is the relay always happens the same. The sender will be
overwritten.
Thanks God, yahoo mail doesn't do this! Now, I use yahoo smtp.
Unfortunately I can't use yahoo smtp as relay with postfix because
there is an issue with STARTLS and a hack is needed. Yesterday I was
to tired to reconfigure the whole. Mutt is able to use remote smtp so
I can send emails.

-- 
- -
--  Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando)  -- http://sayusi.hu --
http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi
--  ""Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry!" - Cromwell

Re: [gentoo-user] gmail smtp overwrites the sender

[Stroller]

On 10 March 2012, at 20:56, András Csányi wrote:
> … I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send
> my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is
> sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the
> sender email address. …  Do you know any solution
> for this?

Use a different SMTP server. 

I don't believe there's any alternative. 

Have you considered Postfix?

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[Jorge Martínez López]

Hi!

I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut
thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not
find some scripts.

The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not
find /usr. So what I did was to include the fstab-sys smodule in
dracut:

/etc/dracut.conf

# Dracut modules to omit
omit_dracutmodules+="usrmount"

# Dracut modules to add to the default
add_dracutmodules+="fstab-sys"

Then I created /etc/fstab.sys with just the /usr partition

/dev/disk/by-uuid/90d82b02-e6c2-4011-940e-783d12b0c4fe  /usr
ext4noatime 1 2

Dracut could only find the partition by using the uuid (use blkid to
find it easily).

The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from
being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it).

The last obstacle is /etc/mtab. By the time /usr is mounted I believe
/ is mounted as read only, so mount cannot update /etc/mtab. The
trivial solutions is to delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink to
/proc/mounts . In that case it is always up to date.

Of course, YMMV. Be careful when changing things that can prevent your
machine from booting and make sure you have a live CD at hand.

Cheers,
-- 
Jorge Martínez López  http://www.jorgeml.net
      Google Talk / XMPP: jorg...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Daddy]

On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes  wrote:

>   This revision makes 2 changes...
>
> A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional.  udev-181
> and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends
> on.  Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine.
>
> B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as
> requested in user feedback.
>
>   The usual warnings apply...
> * this is a beta
> * use a spare test machine
> * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be
>   an unbootable linux
> * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable
>   linux
>
>
> 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at
>/dev
>
> * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set
>   CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
>
> * If you prefer "make menuconfig", the route is as shown below.  Note
>   that the "Autount devtmpfs..." option won't appear until you enable
>   "Maintain a devtmpf..." option.
>
> make menuconfig
>   Device Drivers  --->
> Generic Driver Options  --->
>   [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev
>   [*]   Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the
rootfs
>
>   Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel.
>
>
> 2) Set up for emerging busybox.  busybox requires the "mdev" flag in
> this situation.  The "static" flag is probably also a good idea.  In
> file /etc/portage/package.use add the line
>
> sys-apps/busybox static mdev
>
>Now, "emerge busybox"
>
>
> 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least
>
> #!/bin/busybox ash
> mount -t proc proc /proc
> mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys
> exec /sbin/init
>
>   This should be enough for most users.  If you have an unusual setup,
> you may need additional stuff in there.  Remember to
> "chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc" to make it executable.
>
>  In the bootloader "append" line, include "init=/sbin/linuxrc".  If
> you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes.  If
> you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization.
>
>
> 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev.  Type
>the following 2 commands at the command line
> rc-update del udev sysinit
> rc-update add mdev sysinit
>
>
> 5) reboot to your new kernel.  You're now running without using udev.
>
>
> 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions...
>
> * execute the following command at the commandline
> emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev
>
> * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line
> sys-fs/udev
>   Create the file if it doesn't already exist.  You now have a totally
> udev-free machine
>
> --
> Walter Dnes 
>

Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil'
my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd?

One minor typo to point out:

/atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask

I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some
hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers.

Kindest regards,
Bruce

Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.

[pk]

On 2012-03-11 03:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> "This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of
> udev >=181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your
> system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr.

Ok, I thank both you and Neil for this info. In hindsight I should have
looked deeper before asking but now it's out there so other's wanting to
know (on the gentoo-user list), knows...

Best regards

Peter K

[gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5

[Walter Dnes]

  This revision makes 2 changes...

A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional.  udev-181
and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends
on.  Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine.

B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as
requested in user feedback.

  The usual warnings apply...
* this is a beta
* use a spare test machine
* if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be
  an unbootable linux
* even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable
  linux


1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at
   /dev

* If you prefer to edit .config directly, set
  CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y

* If you prefer "make menuconfig", the route is as shown below.  Note
  that the "Autount devtmpfs..." option won't appear until you enable
  "Maintain a devtmpf..." option.

make menuconfig
  Device Drivers  --->
Generic Driver Options  --->
  [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev
  [*]   Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs

  Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel.


2) Set up for emerging busybox.  busybox requires the "mdev" flag in
this situation.  The "static" flag is probably also a good idea.  In
file /etc/portage/package.use add the line

sys-apps/busybox static mdev

   Now, "emerge busybox"


3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least

#!/bin/busybox ash
mount -t proc proc /proc
mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys
exec /sbin/init

  This should be enough for most users.  If you have an unusual setup,
you may need additional stuff in there.  Remember to
"chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc" to make it executable.

 In the bootloader "append" line, include "init=/sbin/linuxrc".  If
you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes.  If
you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization.


4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev.  Type
   the following 2 commands at the command line
rc-update del udev sysinit
rc-update add mdev sysinit


5) reboot to your new kernel.  You're now running without using udev.


6) Remove udev as per the following instructions...

* execute the following command at the commandline
emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev

* In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line
sys-fs/udev
  Create the file if it doesn't already exist.  You now have a totally
udev-free machine

-- 
Walter Dnes